.. there was not a single republican vote for it. there were a lot of democrats that were against it. the only thing bipartisan about this bill was the opposition. there was never any bipartisan bias. that was not true of medicare or social security. so again, i think when you push something through because you have that kind of muscle and a

negotiated, it would not be a surprise if the other side resists to the bitter end which is what is going on. this a gentleman right here. >> i appreciate you coming before us today. it takes a lot of guts. >> not much brains. >> i -- it is my feeling that we have lost the brain and have no leaders in that 5305 people running this nation. [applause] financing part of the problem, and i share your frustration, my wife is a rabid democrat. i had to endure and obama sign in my front yard. [laughter] what i understand is why we can't just come up with good ideas and agree on good ideas. this seems like we're back to being republicans are democrats.

i am an american. i was not able to love for the person i wanted to in this last election because of the rules and oklahoma are so harsh. a big problem, i think it would be ed kennedy headed defund the federal government. most of the stuff we do at the local level seems to be doing okay. i have an idea that maybe if we started estate paying our federal taxes to the state and lead in the state defined, we might get something done that way. my question is. i have a lot of things, and i don't expect it listened all of them. my big question is, i don't think a lot of people understand since 1970 the fed has created our currency out of nothing but thin air. and the only reason we have been able to go on as long as we have is because it is the world's currency. and once people decide to quit taking american dollars, which looks like china and russia have already started that process, we are going to be in a world of

hurt, and there is nothing the federal government will be able to do about it. what is your opinion of that, sir? >> that is a great point. since your point about running everything luckily, i actually agree that things do work pretty well locally. we have a great municipal government. we had this disaster. a great state government that i am proud of. she has done a great job. our legislature has done a pretty good job. at the federal level i share some of your disappointment, but we did try the solution that you recommended before, and we called it the confederation which is why we have a constitution today. the tunnel soldiers did not get paid during the revolution and stuff to did not get done. the founders needed that.

the -- what is it? government is said dangerous servant and a fearful master. and it is. they put lots of checks and balances and limitations, bill of rights and lots of things in it that no one else had done before. that is why we operate this way. when we say we don't want to send anyone to the federal government, if you are getting a social security check our medicare check or in the american military getting paid as words coming from. more of it is going in medicare, medicaid, social security in the stands of programs. if you want to end all that, you want to think twice about doing it. on the fed question, you know, the point about auditing the fed is a good thing to do. and i am extraordinarily worried about the amounts of currency that has been created out of thin air.

i have been surprised, i must say, that we have not seen more inflation in the wake of what has happened since 2008. it had not occurred. i also thought it would. i'm not as worried as you are about the chinese because they do have a chilean dollars of american debt. and there will think twice about making a value less. you see them getting to invest back in this country. e-mail like it or not, but it's kind of like japanese auto companies. sooner or later this separate plans back here. this next set of appointments will be an interesting set. i would feel better someone else were making in and a lot better if there were different people in it. i'm not a financial expert. i did talk to a lot of bankers and people, not on wall street, but the guys that run the local

banks here. i have never found any of them that thought they could. or that they wanted to rid of it. they usually are key after some method of controlling the currency. this is created in 1913 are 17, right in there. we had a lot more boom and bust before. we still have boom and bust. we just had one called a recession and the great depression after the fed was created. from what i read, lot of what the fed did going in was the wrong stuff to do. let's spotted and see what they're doing. have the discussion and debate. but again this side of the room. >> first of all, a comment on

the health care. you mentioned cockburn is against defunding obamacare. >> he is against shutting down the government. he would love to defund obamacare. >> conservatives have said that the house to pass -- the house could pass a bill to continue funding everything in the government except for obamacare. convince americans that president obama and the democrats are willing to set down the government's to fund obamacare while the nine america extensions and waivers that he has already given to special interests. nothing has been done. let's try something different. medicare, medicaid costs social security all in the same sentence. medicaid is an entitlement. social security and medicare

part taxes. we pay for it. and, you know -- >> we did. >> and i have heard comments, if you keep throwing something up against the wall people start believing it. now people believe medicare, to me and say you're a senior citizen, is sam. how come you're take the step from the government. i pay for social security and medicare. and they keep throwing the same thing. [applause] my question to you is what does you go along with in hoss and brandenstein. >> you made a lot of great points. take the mike. go ahead. >> you were quoted as saying to tea party people as the drunken uncle.

>> i was referring to republican congressman, nazi party people. a totally, totally out of contracts ." in terms of social security and medicare, no one is able did not pay into it. i did my whole life. most people honestly particularly on medicare dropped three times as much as they pay and. that's just true. medical costs are a lot higher today than there were 20 or 30 years ago and no politician likes to raise the medicare. people almost always draw more benefits. social security, depends on your income west. people less fortunate, less

successful, usually get back more than a percent. that's up math problem. these are programs we have enacted in government. reform and change, we have some people. social security disability is often disabused by the people. so just let we have people that abuse few stamps, just like we have health care providers that abuse medicare, of big case in florida where the defense of a group of clinics, we only cheated them out of 70 million, not 270 million. give me a break. that is theft. that is stealing from people, not just the government, people that are now the benefits. so we have a lot of things like that that can and should be corrected. in terms of, you know, the senators, i know these guys.

i admire. i do not vote within 95 percent of the time. now, i will tell you said some of them never served in the house committee is interesting but they're telling the house what to do. we are the majority. we have repealed this to 40 times. yes to get some more republicans elected to the senate, you could help. send your advice saying you go fight first and then have to follow the process. let's say we did exactly what they suggest. i don't have any problem with that. it's going to the senate next. they really think that they can get the votes to pass it to the president? dissent could attach a obamacare back and send it back to the house. the house will reject it. then we shut down the government. the end of the day i'd -- let me finish my point. i will give you a chance to respond. i don't think it is smart for anyone to shut down the government. adam think that is a good thing. at of thing not paying american troops are defaulting on obligations or costing thousands of people their jobs is a good

outcome. and i don't think it will work. and no one has ever shown a point in american history when it did work. so i would say somebody like tom coburn who was there in 95 and is saying this tactic will work is someone i would listen to and the value. let me give you the mike in a chance to respond. >> i said continue funding everything in the government. except for obamacare. >> right. first of all -- >> you keep saying you don't want to defund the government. we're not saying in their s&p one step shut the government down. they just want to set done anything that has to do with obamacare. >> first of all, most of it can't be shut down that way because it is in mandatory spending like medicare and that is most of it. of sorry. census block. as the way it works. we're talking about the discretionary budget refund defense and things like that.

most of this would not be impacted by that particular tactic. second, you know, the house of representatives, our founders made a very different system than the british. the house of commons is where all legislative and executive authority presides. when it does something it then can do it all. the house representatives has descended to the senate. it goes to the senate. and the senate has the option of rejecting it or amending it and sending it back. or it can accept it and send it on. it is not. it will amend it in but the spin iraq back on and send it back to the house. it will never get to the president's desk in the first place. if these guys -- i don't have any objection to what they are trying to do. i have been trying to do it, too. none of them are here to vote against obamacare. i am glad they are here now. a lot of people that i wish had

been running in of six and 08 or not there. when you put up every vote against it and try to appeal it and make changes in it, i don't yield to anybody in terms of what my commitment is to try and changes. but i am not trying to deliberately pursue a strategy that i absolutely think one word. we may end up doing it and that all have any problems loading the legislation. no problem at all. my view, many senators as saying , it certainly would not get past a presidential veto. so you will run to a government shutdown. at that point where you are saying is, well, the president of the united states and democratic senate will get in. maybe you're right. you know, but it did not work that way last time.

you know, if we were not winning on other fronts or repealing parts of it or making changes in it, that is what you have elections to do. you don't just because you feel so strongly about something, i want to put everyone in the air force out of work and i hope they expand. and not kind to pay troops in concert to of combat are afghanistan. another worry about the families that getting a check. and stood there would still command. national weather center, such great people. there will show up until as with the king paid that the tornado is coming. you have to think that through. we are going to have this debate. it we will have this debate again.

>> the mandatory spending law. >> you want to give on mike so that -- right up here. >> i'm suggesting you explain more about the mandatory part of obamacare that makes a big difference. verses the discretionary. if you touch on it -- i don't people -- think a lot of people understand it. >> it is a tough thing. there are certain parts of the budget that congress have to vote on every year or the money this is not get spent. there is 60% that it has to change the law to change the budget. we don't vote money for social security. there is money in the trust fund , and did you reach the age of eligibility, you know, and you have paid in you beat your check. congress is not make a decision

any more on the cost-of-living index. it used to make that decision. so all sort of runs automatically. the same thing is true of medicare and medicaid. over half of the people in short under obamacare will actually be insured by just changing the rates of eligibility for medicaid. higher income will now be eligible to use the program. so you could cut down all of the discretionary stuff and it does not change that. the portions of it that are funded for people -- again, they are in another part of the budget. it is complex, no. i'm trying to get through it. sometimes i have hard time understanding, but they're is a relatively small portion of the budget that is 100 percent of the defense budget. it is 100 percent of what you spend on indian hospitals which we have a number of.

one under percent of the veterans budget. the you want to shut all that down on the chance that the other guy will get in and restore it? some of you think that is a good idea. i think -- i would not feel that way if i -- i just wouldn't. my dad did for 20 years. he used to tell me when he was in the service. there are two things you don't mess with, the challenge that check. and i think he would have been pretty upset if while he was going out breaking his back working on their plans, somebody decided that you have a contract. just shutting down the federal government and you're out of work. that will hurt the defense of the country. so i just have a concern with that. it is disingenuous. let me go back here and let this lady had a chance. >> i'm going to change the subject because i have some questions.

first, you can save the first three and answer them later. >> i have to ask you to refresh my memory, but go ahead. >> when are we going to impeach obama? [applause] fire holder. i would like to know -- i have assigned. well, i have assigned an law who is a border patrol agents. i have a son who is an oklahoma city police officer, who is a rare patrolman here in oklahoma. my son-in-law on the southern border is experiencing a sequester

they had one year ago because everybody knows we're talking about the immigration bill. he brought in five pakistan is the other day. he brings in guns that they were taking of people coming across the border. he has been there five years. he said, they tell them if they don't have air-conditioning in the track and it breaks, to bed. you know what it is here. too bad. good luck. if you have a flat and you're out in the desert, too bad. you better call one of your friends and see if they have a tire for you.

they don't have any -- these guys out there in the wilderness. what is going to come down to on these ranches is we're going to take you and your partner out and drop you off. it will leave you and come back eight hours later and pick you up, which is extremely, as we know, dangerous because they all have a bounty on the head with the cartels. >> absolutely. >> and dino homeland security is buying up all the rounds of ammunition because my husband can't go get -- he camps out at walmart city can buy ammunition we are not crazy people that are going to revolt and all that stuff. those are some of my issues. i would like to talk to you later. >> of lying around afterwards. >> those are some of my questions. >> there rick questions. the start with the ammunition

and mark back. the sequester, you are exactly right. less talk about what it is. it was part of the deal negotiated in the last debt ceiling that said in exchange for raising it you will cut long-term spending by the same amount you raise it. over a trillion of that was pretty much immediately agreed to. and the sequester was actually the president's suggestion. there's a book. he seems to have forgotten this. bob woodward wrote a book called the price of politics. a lively exchange with the white house, but at the end of the day it is pretty exclusive. the president's idea. if congress does not do this we're going to mostly fall on the fence, things like this. that's not going to cut the not discretionary side of the budget which will make us come to a

deal. his idea of a deal was very going to raise taxes multiple times which is not the republican idea of a deal. he get one tax increase and another one with obamacare this year. not likely to get a third. the amount of money involved is a considerable amount, 85 billion. it is a three and half trillion dollar budget. to any of you think you can find about 2% in your budget over the whole thing that you could do without laying people off for putting people like your son and a dangerous situation and furloughing workers one day a week? i kind of thing to you could. we have furloughs' this should not have never happened. so that is what the standoff is on the sequestered. what the republicans until the president is we will sit down and renegotiate with the cuts come from because we think some of these are really stupid -- but we're not going to give up the cuts or raise taxes on the

american people again. it just by doing that. we did not do it last time. so that is what the standoff is right now, and i suspect this issue will be at the heart of what happens from september until december as we approach the end of the fiscal year. the president saying we will get rid of a sequester, but either raise taxes were just borrow the money. the republicans aim will be there redistribute cuts away from areas across the entire budget, but not raise taxes on the american people. that is the essence. on the border stuff, your son knows far more obviously than any of us in this room. on the upside we have doubled the size of the border patrol. we are talking about increasing again. they're is a lot more that needs to be done. internal enforcement inside the united states. 40 percent of the people here

illegally came into the country legally. not like the people your sun are dealing with, but then overstay their visas. and you have told people that hire people account. that is what e-verify is all about. they're is a major debate going on. i suspect no matter what happens at the end of the day the border patrol will get bigger and stronger and more robust, and it needs to be. under these circumstances, it is dangerous. think you for what all of your sons to. because that's all dangerous work. a guy on the point of the spear, the border, that is really tough going. that is one of the reasons why nighter are senators voted for the immigration bill because they did not think it did enough out there. i agree with them on that. coming, the sequester, in terms

of polar, we did not win the election. we don't hire and fire the attorney general. he has to be approved. he only has to be approved one time. so that is the president's choice. in terms of in peace the president of the united states, you have to ask yourself, there is an extraordinarily high bar. only nixon resigned. no american president has ever been removed from office. the standard, never clearly defined, high crimes and misdemeanors, not political differences. if you get the voters in the house you have to have two-thirds of the senate agreed. you card to get through a long trial.

you would tie up the process to stop everything because the country would be riveted on this. so i don't think there is pending legislation to do this board charge. that committee has been tasked. as a rule is can certainly happen, but as a rule you are better off litigating your political differences at the ballot box. alloy's remind my republican friends, i amex for nearly frustrated. there were pretty frustrated when we have the presidency, said, and the house and did not like george bush very much. sure hated losing to them in 2004. they did not quit. they kept working. they took the house and the senate and the white house. it played by the rules. we took them back in 2010. never try to impeach george

bush. think long and hard. these things are difficult because it is always easy to say try it. we are doing is now working. usually what that means is we need to work harder for we doing . i am old enough to watch barry goldwater go down in flames. i hated it. it took 16 years to get ronald reagan. but when we got ronald reagan it changed america and the world and ended the old soviet system. so democracy is hard work, stuff like this, people going in knocking on doors, people, you know, going out and voting. we do it. our system works. it's hard to work, and it's hard to work in part because that is what the founders wanted to be. very afraid of centralized powerful government. it will make this difficult to do. but power announcer representatives with the people, the states every year, president that for four years, we divide

it up. there is no other system as complex as ours to work and move and get things through, but that is because the founders thought of was the best defense for liberty. by and large it has worked out. if madison came back he would be happy about what he saw. they can't get that damned thing done. good. sometimes they do. we just have to -- when people of a different point of your successful politically they won the argument and of, you have to go back and work harder. when the vote yourself. yes. go all the way back to this gentleman back here. >> i just want to follow what. if you could refresh my memory, who was the attorney general under bush? did he knowingly allow the mexican drug cartels? >> not to my knowledge. >> right. did president bush knows a stand

by and allow what happened to our embassy in benghazi? >> to you have a question? >> why isn't a thing being done? >> a lot is being done. first of all, you know, that attorney general has been held in contempt of congress. we have been working on the budget. we'll control the president and the senate. we don't control them. the justice department has ever filed charges against its own attorney general in the history of the united states. so that is not likely to happen. the best chance was to win the last election. as far as benghazi, there are multiple hearings that have produced some really important changes. you are going to hear more and seymour. that is why things happened right now because those hearings have taken place because those people did not take the explanations that evening. to me, benghazi is the point of

the whole failed foreign policy. what are we doing in libya in the first place? it was a dumb idea. the only piece of legislation. could not work with people that we recognize. pass the house and then change the rules of the game. they never came back to congress and asked for authority. and never came back and submitted a budget. ..

i don't think the budget would have been cut 24% in the house appropriations bill. so things are getting done in so far as we have the weapons to do them, but we don't have the executive branch. we came close, not close enough and we don't have the senate. we have a great chance to get the senate next time and there would be very different the last two years for the administration's ban if we lose the house which you can count on the replay info nine and ten in my opinion. we back here. yes, sir. >> in the early days of the atm is becoming a product and a given work what can our community program that was prepared for us to implement is one that i worked on and one of the authors and others missing piece and we are losing people and this is for an introduction

of the work to do to go and make the airline terminal, the bank teller line terminal. when you install what you will lose out on the officer and the customer. senate i'm not sure i am stand the question. they divided up the base. they don't know the same balance estimate they don't know the same lot? >> balance. i don't know that i know a lot about the trademark. it's something for you to write down and take with you. >> thank you. let's go to this side of the room and come back here. there you go. >> congressman, can you discuss -- sorry. can you discuss your view on immigration reform? >> certainly can. very much opposed to the senate bill.

partly because i think it has way too much discretion by the administration and partly because it defies when the border is a secure and that sort of thing. that is the recipe for disaster. if you have any insurance by enforcement i don't think it would pass the house of representatives. don't think it should. the three principles i look at you have to have a piece of legislation so it's going to be pretty comprehensive. so far we don't have that in the house. number one, do have to make the border absolutely secure and that is all right as americans to it and until you have it secure, i don't think you can have immigration reform, so border security first. i will say this. in the senate bill there is a lot that i don't like i do like the fact that they doubled the size of the border patrol and that they put extra technology and i do like that they have e-verify. they've made some progress and that's why i picked up a little

republican support along the way. that's why he was passed. you have to remember to out of judge reef agreed republican senators voted knows there is a lot of skepticism. they got better. border security, number one. number two, internal enforcement. that is remember almost half, 40% of the folks that are here is illegal came in a legally. they didn't cross the border, they literally came in on the student visa or something and they overstayed. and i am sorry, you are not allowed to do that. if you have to have a mechanism to do that and to actually enforce. number three, no amnesty. by that i mean i don't think the senate bill is an amnesty bill. some people would disagree with me on that. but, the senate bill requires that number one you have to know english and go through a background check and number three you have to pay your back taxes and you have to pay a fine

and then you have to go to the back of the line and take a minimum of 13 years. that is worth talking about the that is not amnesty. we did amnesty in 1986. it was a big mistake. it was the legalization of a promise of the future enforcement. we know that doesn't work. if it didn't work under ronald reagan it certainly wouldn't work for president obama to read that this kind of in general and i'm trying to find -- i don't fit on any of the committees that deal directly with integration. that is the homeland security and judiciary. i don't sit on the appropriation committees that fund those areas. so you know, we are trying to study this and look at it from the point to see who's there. we are looking at the legislation. i also would say i don't think you are going to see an emigration bill until you sort out these other things. we don't have the end of the fiscal year done but we have the sequester. if you don't have the debt

ceiling one way or another your not going to get the immigration reform ever. those other things have deadlines that put people out of work or trigger economic consequences immigration takes a lot longer. i think there was an effort to sort of to the rush this summer but to just shove something through that got to the house of representatives and was no. i know this won't be much solace but to some of you that is the most important thing about the house of representatives is that stops stuff. you don't have a republican house a lot of people are prepared to gamble with including our friends in the senate that bill would be the law. so think twice before you take the goal we out of the game and i think we will play such a good offense that we never have to play any defense. it doesn't work on politics

either. right now the only thing between the president being able to do dodd-frank and stimulus and health care as the first two years you get rid of that and you will see that move right on through and that is something i don't think the country can afford. yes, ma'am. >> i would like to say thank you for coming. first of all on immigration i think like you do, not for amnesty. i'm sorry but those people did come here and the overstayed their visas and they knew it and they are here illegally and i'm not for giving them citizenship. also, on benghazi i have to grant children serving in the military. i didn't vote for obama and i

wouldn't vote for him ever. i think that he is leading us in a socialist countries have come and the sad part about it i think there's a lot of young people that don't understand that because they are not being taught that anymore in the schools. on the benghazi thing i don't understand why it has taken so long. if anyone of us in here had done something like that we would already be gone and buried. for those two people, obama and hillary, to stand up in front of the parents of those young men and blame this on a man in california, how in heaven's name do they get away with it? if one of those had been my grandchildren or a sign i would have been screaming at that man. they would have had to put the underground because i don't know how they are getting away with it. for him to act like our military

-- he wants it to be a socialist country and i get sick of it every day when i think about it and my husband told me i needed to go away and take a break but i see so much and i hear so much and i have two grandchildren fighting for this country. i would think that we would have a president that would back up our military better than what he does and we need to get rid of him. [applause] one i would like you to answer i don't know if you are aware or if you have seen these phones. my husband and i traveled 11 states a few months back and oklahoma is the worst one that we've seen. my feelings are the more things we give away the more these kids are going to sit back and i'm sorry my grandson has a tattoo. i know they do it. they choose not to get insurance

and they pay money for a tattoo and we just ignore it. but to keep on giving away they are sitting up there with their hand out and i think we need to put a stop to it. they are making billions of dollars so how do we stop that? >> you cut discretionary spending we do, actually we probably cut -- i am not a big fan of this program to say the least, so i would be happy to new get rid of it. you're point about the culture of giving and giving and giving is exactly right. food stamps double under george bush and they've doubled again under the president. i doubt anybody in here is against children getting said that when you go from $17 billion to $78 billion we have a pretty decent piece of

legislation that would have cut 40 and started some reforms in this program and we will take another crack at it when we get to september we lost some of the votes because they didn't think it through far enough and i understand that and we lost other votes because it went too far and we had most republicans but almost no democrats. we just didn't get it done if you have to attack these things because they are open to abuse and it isn't just the money. that's pretty bad. but it's also the fact that you are taking money from the people that need it which is worse and also you are creating the cultural where people think that the government is responsible for everything. they don't have to get up and go to work, they don't have to do the things that every other generation of america has done including the war on that. on benghazi, this is actually a situation where the political process to a degree has worked. when i worked at benghazi i actually gave a floor speech on this and i said to me it is a

really sad tale on competence and cover-up quite frankly and complacency. we are complacent because let's be real this is a dangerous part of the world and we have by the way a lot of military assets in this part of the world. the idea that we couldn't respond quickly on the 9/11 anniversary to me you have to have some pretty hard questions who was thinking, particularly in a place like this and the british had pulled out of there. they shot their diplomatic mission because it was so dangerous. our ambassador died and warned us this is extraordinarily dangerous. there had been police and up the chain of command they were told they didn't get to the secretary of state's desk. i have no reason to believe that is a lie but they should have at least got the deputy secretary. and it didn't work. they didn't follow up.

i'm not saying that they wanted this to happen. nobody wants it to happen. but when you are responsible, you do it. once this occurs, and we have four dead americans, we are told that it is a video instead of a planned terrorist attack we that it was a plan. the people of the ground were telling us. they weren't saying anything about spontaneous riots under attack, so in that sense i don't think the administration had multiple levels that had ever been honest with the american people about what happened that night and ended up with four dead americans. we don't get a lot of help in the senate. they are not hearing a lot and they are pushing pretty hard. so most of the testimony that you've heard have been people that we got it is a fight the republican majority got to testify in putting the number two guy on the ground. the other thing i have to give

the folks credit for, one of them in the oversight committee that service to the conserves' -- served for days after this the state department people on the ground were told by the chief of staff and the secretary of state, hillary clinton's chief of staff don't talk to them what do you mean don't talk to them? they are the oversight committee of the congress and the of every right to be out there asking questions. that is their job. so again, we will continue to push this. when the president talks about we had a summer of scandals, really? how is this a phony scandal? how is the irs systematically going after and harassing people mostly on the right but frankly anybody for any reason not a scandal? how is not tapping the phones which 100 reporters use not a scandal? those are all either his

appointees or places where he has authority. you can't just act like you were the absentee landlord and you don't know what goes on in the house. you are the chief of the executive branch. so, you know, i think we will keep pushing on these things as hard as we possibly can and hold people to account. sometimes it works. there is a new commissioner. the chief counsel is trying to take the fifth amendment. there have been multiple changes in that department. i suspect there will be more in the state department. the people responsible have had to change positions. i don't think that is enough. the need to be gone if you have to keep the pressure relentless. here is a problem sometimes in this administration there are so many targets of opportunity sustaining attention on one of them as tough because the its not one thing or one mistake is

multiple mistakes in the administration, multiple policy disputes, but we have been finding out each and every day, and we are going to continue to do that, we absolutely are. yes, sir? >> congressman, i do have a question for you and i would like to respond one of our fellow members of the audience who identified himself seemed to be at a loss as to why we are not supporting obamacare when people in new york and california are. let me just tell you that i am a former nursing home administrator, health facility survey year for the state of idaho, general manager for an assisted living facilities. i've been married to a nurse who has been immersed for 30 plus years and i have probably a dozen members of my family that worked in health care. i'm originally from the industrial midwest from the state of ohio and i can tell you

that as far back as the 1980's, there were only two insurance companies that were willing to ensure that in the state of michigan because there was no tort reform but life devotee issues were confirmed. president obama stated again and again when he was pushing health care down our throat that he wanted it to be a bipartisan process and that he was inviting the the republican and put. republicans told him again and again that in order to achieve any real savings in health care, in order to get rid of any of the diagnostic tests and anything else that costs all of us so much money that we needed to pass the tort reform, but because he like the rest of the democratic party are in the pocket of the american trial lawyers association, the was never going to happen. it didn't happen and that is the

answer to your question. that's why. [applause] >> congress and, ii understand and i agree with the gentleman that described this brave man so i'm going to get a step further. i'm going to put you on the spot here just a little bit. but i know that you have served us well. i talked to you before my own son is a serving officer in the united states navy to aid i worked with a guy whose son just came back from afghanistan and i work with another who didn't hear from their son for six months because he is a special office and he has no idea where in the world he was during this time and it is a case where i can tell you what we are concerned about is again and again whether it is benghazi, and i agree 100% with this outrage or whether it is the irs or whether it is this mevel data

-- mevel data scandal we don't seem to be hearing enough from the leadership mainly if a guy from my own state i've been in a lot of good arguments from the university of oklahoma and the ohio state buckeyes when it comes to football but i can tell you that i am ashamed of the kind of inaction that appears to be going on with our speaker, john boehner. [applause] i would like to put you on the spot and i'm just going to ask you flat out what to support an effort to remove john boehner and to put in another speaker of the house that would be more attuned to the concerns that a lot of us conservatives have? >> if you're talking about right now in the middle of the term, no.

15 members can sign a petition and call of the conference and you could have an election. normally but we do is every two years you elect. he didn't have a serious challenge. you know, i don't think that you change back from the middle of this particular game. so no, i wouldn't do it now. now, when we get to the end of two years, they lose, let's see who won, let's see who actually steps of and offers themselves. you know, i've been in a couple of these contests before and i wasn't on the winning side the last time there was a serious contest. roy blunt who is now the united states senator that is now where i am at. in terms of your point on a football we are not going to argue with you much this year. let's leave it there. if you have a follow-up ahead. >> i really don't accept thank you for the job to do. one thing that is important to

point out even if we are frustrated i know every member of congress was encouraged by conservative groups during this recess and to talk to their constituents. i know about 24% of them dead and the rest of them ignored it so thank you for being here. [applause] what me start by saying thank you. this is what democracy is supposed to be about. it's the middle of the day. it's august, it's 99 degrees outside. we hold some of these in the day, one in the evening for people that are coming in after work. we try to do these things pretty regularly. we do telephone town halls. i appreciate the fact that you come out and i appreciate the fact that you ask tough questions and good questions and if you have a point of view if we lose that then we lose the country.

thank you for your service and for your son's service but you know your kind of serving democracy on your own in the middle of the day. thank you. >> let's go back. we've done this side to review been very patient. we will get you next that way you don't have to move far. >> thank you for starting questions. i have a comment and i have a question. first comment is why are we running from terrorists shutting down the embassy is when we are the most all of nation on earth? why can't we put more marines? we shouldn't be running. my second question has to do with the financial market. since the clinton administration took off glass-stegall which caused the recession of 08 and

09. since that time, the continued to emerge and they have now got a derivatives market that has a liability of more than all of the money in the world. it is the major tightrope and if anything goes wrong, it is not just the united states going wrong, it is the entire world. why hasn't glass-stegall been put back in to unravel this because frankly frank dodd doesn't and the rule is being written by people like jaime dimond which is basically asking the fox to come into the henhouse and have dinner. how do we get this unraveled before we hear a sucking sound and everything goes away? we are very forward deployed in terms of going after these guys. that is why the gentleman didn't

hear from his friend for six months because he is out doing that kind of work. so we are pretty aggressive. and we can disagree over tactics or whether we are doing it exactly right and those discussions are helpful. there's been more of them and we will continue to be pretty aggressive. in terms of the embassy dhaka think that is as much to warn people not to come or to be there. i think they are worried about what happened in east africa -- not speaking off the cuff. this has happened since we have been home to read haven't had any brief on this but my guess is they don't want to risk a situation where hundreds of people did get killed. so that is the call and i'm sure there will be looked at when we get back. but believe me, we are a lot more on offense here.

that's why we haven't had anything like a 9/11 again. we have been pretty much continuously on offense around the world. on the glass-stegall i'm not on the financial-services, but, you know, i think there is a lot to your point and i don't want to dump on president clinton signed it, but everybody in congress voted for it and it passed the senate like 99-0 and there was a republican proposal. so i am not sure that both sides didn't get full on that. there's the effort to reinstitute it in the senate right now. that is why elizabeth koren and john mccain we haven't seen it on side on the house side we've tried to go after fannie and freddie with legislation to protect the taxpayers from having to be drug into that kind of thing again and to return to

the mortgage markets to private hands and get the government out of that you're point about the expansion banks is a worry someone and i think it is a good one. look, i didn't vote for dodd-frank. i think it is pretty misconceived. and i think that it's hurting a lot of community banks without giving anything with the big banks, which are the ones that can threaten the economy if we have a bank failure in oklahoma we know what to do with it and frankly, the fdic was how to handle it. when you are talking about institutions the size you are describing the six or seven organic banks you are exactly right. dodd-frank, the answer although not fully implemented, so maybe i would change things, the growth of the big banks and 08 suggest to me not, the opposite. so we are looking at this. all i can tell you is we will continue to see the legislation coming out of the republican financial affairs committee.

and i actually raised this point with some of the guys on our committee. and honestly, they wouldn't share the point of view that you expressed or that i have sympathy with. so, you know, so far there is a serious debate over how much that contributed i think it contributed a lot. i sort of thing that banking is one thing and derivatives are something else. and injuring of a bank deposits is one thing. insuring the butter a bit of vets and gamble's when they get the wins and the taxpayer got the loss is quite something else again. i don't think that this the date is older and i think that we will be looking at it legislatively for awhile to me and i don't have a definitive answer for you right now. >> because of a technical problem, we left about a minute of the video from this town hall meeting. the congressman answered questions on gun violence.

>> -- a lot of scorecards in my life, and usually they are drawn up to arrive at a predetermined answer. let me talk about my voting record. i have a 92% lifetime americans voting record. i have 100% pro-life national right to life voting record. [applause] i have an a-plus in the greeting over 11 years. i've never voted for a tax increase. that doesn't sound like a dangerous liberal to me. i think my voting record is actually pretty conservative. a lot of times when they pick out amendment fruits as opposed to final passage. they have a point they want to make and again, some scorecards have been mentioned today. the representative of the society. that's okay. they are allowed to score people. some are essentially libertarian that don't care about the social issue, don't care about gun control, don't care about the

right to life issues. i do. i think that is consistent conservatism. .. >> how can congress will for bills that the american people have do abide by.

>> actually, they generally don't, and they shouldn't. and we have not as a rule. this was actually one of the changes with the contract. so we are under the same rules. you have to pay social security, yes, i do, you get special health insurance, it's exactly the same as if you are a federal worker. will i have to go on exchange? yes, i will. to the president makes and changes? , without congressional approval. those are fair questions. i wish i were under it. but we are under it. and congress actually put itself under obamacare. put its staff under that. i can tell you that that's pretty unfair to the staff. they didn't sign him for that. they came to work. but we disagree and we will have

to go on the exchange. what the president said this last week is basically, okay, you have to go on the exchange. that was a decision that he made. that was not a decision that was done through the office of personnel management. mostly because democrats have push the bill through. they are the ones that have been besieging the president about changing the law. >> yes, sir. i have to tell you that before you start, we played football together. a longer time ago than any of us care to admit and he is a distinguished berean veteran. serving a great distinction. it is good to see him out here. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> he also beating out for first trombone we were in junior high. >> then we played football.

>> all the things that have been said here today are very important. but please very heavy upon our thoughts and minds and there's a lot of people in this room. and i have something personal that i want to talk to him about. we have a debt that is yet to be paid as americans. very important group of americans here in the united states and many people do not know about this. that is to a group of world war ii veterans of that war that were promised veteran status after the war due to their service. then they were denied that veteran status until 1988. that is the world war ii

merchant marines trade my father who is a doctor here in the state of oklahoma was a cook aboard a ship and was wounded by japanese bombs. he was denied veteran status until 1988. when a special act of congress was passed to let them have their status. of course by that time, they were old enough that they could get their g.i. bills and they did not have to get their va loans that everybody else did. my dad borrowed $5000 to go to college and become a doctor and helped to build this great

state. i'm going to read a couple of things so you can be a little bit more educated in us. 126 marines serving in world war ii died in the line of duty. suffering a greater percentage of war related deaths other than u.s. services. and all the other u.s. services. casualties were kept secret to keep information from the enemy leaving more readers ask me. the newspapers essentially told the same story every week. two ships sunk in the atlantic. in reality, the average for 1942 was 33 allied ships sunk every week. like i said, it wasn't until 1988 but they got that

recognition. in april of 1942, just off of brunswick, off the coast, the ss oklahoma was sunk. let's see here. nineteen readers were killed. four of them were burned beyond recognition and graves marked as unknown seamen in 1942. they have been since identified and now have a memorial dedicated to them. that is from our people from our home state here. and we still don't have recognition from our own congress about that.

8000 screeners were killed at sea, at least 100 died, 6000 men and women were taken prisoner. total estimate killed was 9300. some were blown to born to death, incinerated, and some start. sixty-six died in prison camps or aboard japanese chips. and 31 ships were damaged. the most dramatic of these acts during that war happened on the 27th of september 1942. hopkins refused to surrender. both vessels surrendered.

with the shift in flames, that engine cadet, and from the u.s. merchant marine academy fired the last five available shelves setting is on fire. o'hara was killed by shrapnel and 40 others went down with that ship. i don't want to be disrespectful, but i believe that i have to make a point. the point is that i am asking you to sponsor a bill to represent the congressional gold medal to survivors of the living u.s. merchant leaders, just like we have done with other world war ii veterans groups and to get it done as soon as possible. i certainly don't have any problem doing something like

that. these things are not easy to get done. you have to get almost every member of congress to agree to it. but the point is without question a great point. i have a dad that serve 20 years in the air force come i have an uncle who is in a prison camp and a grandfather who is a captain of a navy ship and multiple engagements in the pacific. so believe me, i have revered the people that do these kinds of things and i have kept the light of liberty going when it was in a very easy thing to do. i don't believe you can never do too much for people to pay that kind of price. yes, ma'am? >> let's get to a microphone. almost there. >> thank you. why are people not required to work in order to receive welfare

and food stamps there was the wpa. >> i'm sure your grandmother told you about that. >> my great-grandmother. >> there you go. they worked, we are talking of infrastructure and everything. my dad went out, they built ridges in oklahoma. and he got out and worked all day long. for that we got food stamps through commodities. but anyway, commodities. and then he got a little bit of money. why are we giving this is a handout when we should let them linson character's i could not

agree with you more. as a matter of fact, frank lucas, when he is negotiating, he is the chairman of that committee. the farm bill is about 80% food stamps. he put in a town of ton of reform, including one just like that. we had 170 odd republican votes, they wanted more reform. i don't disagree with that, but they voted no. we lost most of the democrats. so that bill went down. trying to resurrect it now. i think that he will come back with a very tough bill. so this fight is coming back again. and we have done work requirements, it does work. it works, its people back in the workforce. much better to be getting a paycheck, the people that are being generous at the other end don't feel like suckers.

these kind of requirements make sense. to be fair, on food stamps, well over half of them are children. do not understand that. >> exactly what you're trying to do is exactly what we're trying to pass in the house of representatives right now. sometimes you hate to lose people we know they agree with you, but they just say, well, it needs to go further. if we could get the votes, we would go as far as we could go. if you don't go with it, we lose your votes and were losing all of the democratic votes over here. so that is what frank is trying to do right now. i think you will see a pretty tough bill in september. but we are going to have to have pretty universal public and support. some republicans don't want to vote for this at all. the argument is the state issue should be run by the state. it's not that i disagree with it

but, i'm sorry, this is the program as it exists, and we are trying to make it better and save some money. if we can do better next time, let's do better next time. but sometimes it's like i'm not going to do anything unless it works. no one ever gets everything they want all the time in real life. sometimes you have to say that i can make progress in the right direction and i can put work requirements and i can save money. the passes and get this done. that is one tension among republicans. >> i couldn't agree more. >> thank you. yes, sir? >> let's work our way forward. >> i think we need a committee on benghazi and where do you

stand on our? >> i have cosponsors of legislation to do that. we have multiple committees looking at this, and we should let them do their work. but i think it would be a lot better just to focus it on one committee and perhaps have extra staff or whatever. i support that effort in regards to that bill. >> let's talk to this gentleman. don't worry, we will come back, guys. >> speaking of benghazi, when secretary of the state talked about this, when she was speaking out about this, she said that it was reprehensible that this person made this video and i was the reason benghazi happen to be a part of it. but what i'm trying to talk about is we have the secretary of state that doesn't realize that we have freedom of speech in this country, that if you choose to speak out against islam and make a movie about it, that is not illegal.

that is actually permitted under our constitution because we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. so to have the secretary of state that does not recognize that and says he's going to go after that person, i find that reprehensible. i also find that she made a statement that secretary of state is going that is going to be u.s. policy to support those countries that supported homosexual rigi n't think that t should be the primary focus of our state department. the fact that the supreme court and the justice department did not defend the defense of marriage act allows this to go towards gay marriage, it is going to force oklahoma even though we had a constitutional amendment banning us, we are going to have to force them, the state of oklahoma and other states, to give back gay

marriages and i would like for you to address those issues and those are very good issues. when it comes to benghazi, i certainly agree with you. we don't have any proof that this had anything to do with anything. actually we knew better. we knew the state department had been told by people under the ground, that they were under attack. not a spontaneous demonstration, no one was shouting about the video. i think it was an effort to obscure the truth. they had been complacent that they had taken precautions that we got caught flat-footed and americans died as a consequence. i do remember that. and i think the fact that this story is still unfolding is probably, you know, the truth is still working its way around. but we know more now because people had hearings on it. darrell issa and others had hearings and about the people on

the ground and started to tell the truth. in terms of the president not defending the law, i think this happened multiple times. i think it's the cheek executives obligation to defend the laws. he changed his mind on it. you have a constitutional obligation to defend the law in court. and you don't get to pick and choose which ones you want. it ended up paying for legal defense of the law. they should have had to do that. its executive branches, the department of justice and the responsibility of the law. in terms of oklahoma, it is effectively turning gay marriage into a state issue. you know, i don't know enough about the law to know where we

are headed on us. it looks to me like it's going to be a state-by-state thing unless we get another supreme court ruling. i think what the supreme court is trying to do is to avoid doing what it did before. that is having a one-size-fits-all, trying to kick it back and let people in individual states do it. but it has made clear that if a state decides to do it and you are a federal employee, that you are obviously subject to the same benefits that everyone else is in the state. and again, that is the supreme court action and i think that is where we are at. probably better than a sweeping decision where the supreme court decided that it would do whatever it wanted to do, letting people in individual states make the decision. >> coming over here, we will get back in a minute.

yes, sir? >> can you look closer? >> yes. thank you. >> we have touched on this issue. i lived in california until 1995. i was born in san diego. i was a police officer, a police detective in san diego for a number of years and also a contractor. i have two other businesses. i was a mechanic and a machinist. i can tell you the problems that have killed california are headed right here and someone better wake up. california was just like this place was in about 1970.

rightbabies being born are born to illegal aliens and they don't pay a dime. but the california unemployment rate is indescribable. i want to see that happen here. i moved here because i was here with the army in the 1960s. and i know what a great state of oklahoma is. i don't want to see it destroyed. no amnesty. no work permits. get rid of every illegal alien pushing back across the border. and collecting unemployment is six weeks. i mean, i have had numerous jobs over my lifetime and it never took me more than two weeks to become employed.

when i moved to oklahoma, i went to the unemployment office. i asked for a job and not a handout. they didn't know what to do. they were lost. they couldn't believe it. finally after a dollar or two, i got to a guy that helped veterans and he got me a job. i was unemployed for two days. so somebody who says they can't get work here is a lazy jerk. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> you will not be the first guy to say that. thank you. thank you for your service. >> we will do a weekend. we are trying to cut the unemployment right now. it needs to go back to push

legislation through the house several times. it has been way too long. so i think you'll continue to see efforts to reduce fat. i think whatever happens on immigration and border security will continue to be a top priority. it has actually doubled the size of the border patrol. it has moved in the right direction. it's going to continue. we have a long way to go to address these problems. the salmon here has been very patient. we will get to you and asked. okay? you guys have been very patient. now there has been a lot said about the scandals that have been and is in what is funny is the writer and not the scandals. >> yes, i just disapprove of

what he says. >> well, that's okay. >> anyway, i wonder if you ended the speaker, did you express your disapproval to him? i'm not talking about an empty chamber in the middle of the night. >> and know that you can write an editorial. >> someday. i disapproval but more. >> okay, about him being so cavalier about the scandals. >> oh, yes, i've spoken on multiple pieces. some of these columns appear

weekly and we sent around areas that we represent. they are on our websites. website. we have been very critical of benghazi. very critical with the irs. you know, voting repeatedly from cutting funding to the oversight committee and what they have tried to do on this issue. >> i just thought that it was downright terrible the way that he said this and how it's funny. >> yes, it's not funny when people have been harassed. that is not a phony scandal, that is a real scandal. >> those things can also affect this because the people on the conservative side and also people on his side and those investigations. so you can really have a bad effect. >> yes, the president needs to be very careful about what they

say. >> as a congressman, is it possible for you to see the president's transcripts in this way? >> well, i don't think that it is. >> i have another question. >> as far as i know we don't use transcripts. >> i think all this has said many times that we would like to have a fair tax and this seems to be the best opportunity to get rid of the irs. is it ever announced were discussed about the fair tax or a flat tax? >> yes, actually cosponsoring this this is actually my favorite, although i would take it over the current system in a heartbeat. and they there are vehicles for both of them. there is major tax reform legislation being discussed now in between the house ways and

means committee. and the senate is also trying to move this around. so our challenge is going to be, again come you have a democratic senate and a democratic president. i think that this is a real opportunity for major tax reform, either of these approaches is better than what we've got, which is a tax system that is riddled with credits and loopholes. you know, a friend of mine is a member from texas who sits on that committee and he said the tax code is four times the size with none of the good news. it's a pretty good summary. >> yes, it is. >> in your opinion, if a presidential candidate made that a major point, would it carry anything? >> yes, i think it would. and whenever things that the tax system is fair. it's always been an issue that

resonates with america. taxes were one of the reasons that we declared our independence in the first place. we thought we ought to have a direct say in it, which we did. i think it is a major, you know, after her. i think you're going to see it more particularly if congress cannot act in the next couple of years, in this divided situation. i suspect whoever is running for president will make it a major issue. the last time that we had really important tax stuff, ronald reagan was president. he ran on what was called camp rock, it was lowering the rates 90. another part of it out in the tax reform act of 1986. helped to get him elected and reelected. help to unlock the prosperity of the 1980s. so we need to change the tax system and there are multiple ways. the flat tax, to me, is easy.

the fair tax, again, it would be better than what we have now for sure. >> yes, ma'am? >> thank you so much for coming. >> thank you. >> and energy state, it seems like we're getting attached to fuel these days in the coal industry is the first one that's going to go down. i feel like that it will go and go until it's gone. the epa is honestly overreaching. what can we do? >> well, first of all, you are exactly right. there has been almost a war on carbon-based energy by this administration. cole has been the number one target. we have 260 years worth of coal supply. we have exported. it is clean coal and high quality and we have a lot better technology than we did 20 years ago. the idea that we are going to knock this american resource out

of the mix is just crazy to me. as well as jobs, thousands and thousands of jobs. in the house budget, we have cut the epa's budget by 34%. we have put writers in it. these are special things that restrict what they can do. we have a senate and the president to deal with on this issue. we will continue that. there is not a much bigger coal state and he has seen thousands of jobs lost in his district. it's not a very rich district. they are not historically big wealthy places. so you are destroying a core industry in some areas that have been challenged. my biggest concern is in

oklahoma with natural gas and oil. i am all of the above, all kinds of energy, i love wind power, have no problem with the wind tax credit. but about 80% of the power in this country comes from carbon-based energy. anyone who thinks that we will be getting rid of it is just fooling themselves. natural gas is cleaner than any other kind of carbon-based energy and we have tons of it in this country. they brought the price down and it is providing multiple jobs and reinvigorating the industry. because we actually have a huge advantage over a lot of our industrial competitors and it's cheaper than just about anyplace else that manufactures. again, these are industries that are productive, that are growing

in output and we ought to be fostering. so i have voted for about every pro-energy piece of legislation that we can find. some people understand that i would like us to be able to have that kind of leverage in world affairs, and i think that that will continue development and investment here. a proponent of the keystone pipeline, i doubt that we will disagree on energy. the most important energy debate coming forward is probably the debate over tax reform. we do in finnish domestic advantage domestic exploration in the united states, by things like tangible drilling costs. it's very important because it encourages exploration here. we don't have those things to american companies that produce offshore. but that is going to be cut up

when the president talks about this being a subsidy. and by the way, it's about the same tax break that would give every manufacturing company in america. why wouldn't we give energy companies comparable tax incentives to invest in state care. the district that i am privileged to represent is one of the top in the country. producing more natural gas than we ever have in history, there's there's a lot out there stultifying here in places we have been drilling for 100 years. so again, i think it will be a big component in the future and it always amazes me that the president likes to vilify the industry lately is talking about how we import less oil since he has been president than we did before. do you think that this had any earthly thing to do with it? you guys didn't invent tracking or drilling, you guys, if you look at this, typically this is

done like 19%. drilling permits are down by about a third. that is 20% of the land owned by the federal government. if you get west of here, utah and wyoming in places like that, the majority of those the states are in the hands of federal government. it is not particularly helpful in terms of developing that resource, which we get the royalties on not as taxpayers. that flows into the treasury and we ought to be doing as much private development on the land as we possibly can. >> will it be gone in the near future? >> i don't think so. we need a president with a different attitude towards his ministry. there are things that we can do in congress that we have done to try to slow down. but when the president gets to a

point of chief regulators may have a regulatory philosophy, they will make it difficult on coal. we have one of the advisors here saying yes, there is a war on coal and you know, we are going to keep producing and we are doing our best in clean coal technology. but still the most abundant energy resource in the country. we have the largest reserves in the world. the idea that we would ever turn and walk away from it is just crazy. i do not believe that it strengthens us. >> okay, going all the way to the back and we'll come back and get you over here. >> okay. >> a law that went into effect in oklahoma called competitive bidding and access to durable medical equipment.

okay. you said that you will be of medicare age soon. how far do you think you have to go to get medical equipment now in your district? >> quite a ways. >> error 26 suppliers that can supply the state of oklahoma. three of those are local. the average travel distance to find this is 752 miles. this is what happened and no one's talking about it. so none of the local suppliers that you have seen and wherever else you can go in now, they didn't get the contract. they went to florida, they went to texas. they went to the nationals who don't do that stuff. we passed the law in the cayman

to your district from a southern part of it all the way up to guthrie. i mean, it just hit oklahoma july 1. you're going to have to travel and then you're going to have to have a supplier. >> the state law? >> of federal law iraq okay. >> medicare.gov is a supplier. in other words, the one gentleman says that this happens. there are four local suppliers that got a contract and all the rest of these. so they access the wheelchairs and walkers and whatever else has drastically changed.

the law says that wal-mart out of contract and they bring it to you and deliver it and teach you how to use it. if anyone believes that's going to happen, i do not. >> skepticism is a good thing. the gentleman right here? >> when it comes to sequestration, a lot of us are asking about more than his and more of that. i was really proud to take a job at an air force base this year. all of a sudden you're telling me that my time is not worthwhile. >> my dad worked 20 years, my brother works there. >> you finish the question and i will respond. >> i had to make phone calls for people to get gasoline for their

vehicles. we are calling united way so we can afford to pay our bills. that's not right. that is not treasonous true nasserite. with the lady back here, you know, having blogger with your own tires, that is what we are coming down to? excuse me, but sequestration, you're talking about cuts this year, what about the next are down the road? that is not a solution if we cannot put 500 people together and come up with some type of solution. same events make this thing worked out, it's not supposed to be a bunch of little kids. >> cannot respond? of the a great question with great points. the house of representatives twice passed legislation to take care of and eliminate

sequestration. the president never made a counter offer at all. nobody would've been furloughed, no one would've been stopped. this is 2.5%, less than 2.5%. so i don't think -- i think the president was not serious. and this is his idea. an idea that he proposed and advocated for and that he signed into law. he offered to solutions. mr. when the first announcement came, there was going to be 22 days of furlough. we got cut first of 14 and nine to 11, two weeks ago i offered an amendment on the house floor and we had something you may well be covered by and certainly familiar with, working with capital funds. that is not appropriated dollars. no reason why 9500 workers,

180,000 around the country are being furloughed at all. that is the administration's decision. when i brought this up to the secretary of defense committee said everyone ought to be furloughed the same amount. that is not saving any money, why would we furloughed these people? so if we come to a deal with the president, i have been there on compromises. i am not one of these guys that says no, i will never sit down or deal with it. this one is not offered a plan, he has not responded artist, the senate has never talked about this. they let it happen because they wanted to make a political point and they think that we can sign a bill that says we will save us money in our you're just going to waive it. that is not going to happen. we were willing to redistribute these cuts and we've done it twice.

when the president has a real plan to sit down, and we then we are happy. we would be happy. he campaigned for about six weeks leading into this cluster, all over the country. he never bothered to call the speaker or the majority leader or the minority leader in the two houses, and he brought them down the very last day before sequester began for a photo opportunity and a political statement and that's not how you sit down and deal with these things. so when the president wants to sit down, and i have talked about this personally. have a sitdown, happy to try to find a solution here, but, you know, i think the administration has not acted responsibly and their idea -- we have offered solutions and have been willing to negotiate. and i suspect we'll probably do it this fall. the other point, which is an important one, is exactly right. it is not a one-time deal.

if we don't get this fixed it happens again the next fiscal year. >> i would like to invite you out. >> i would be happy to. >> this is not the first amendment of air force base. that is an extraordinary work force. >> that is really sophisticated as a skill. my dad worked there 20 years. my brother works there. so i have a pretty good idea what goes on in we fight very hard. i'd be happy to stack up versus with democrats have done and i'm happy to stack up all my republican colleagues have asked for a bill.

it could've been avoided and should never ever have happened. i'm happy to visit with you. >> yes, sir? >> there is a bill that is mandatory in the united states. how do you feel about that? >> i'm not really familiar with the legislation. so i'm happy to look at it. >> i don't have any problem, but what you put on your meter is accused as i'm concerned. >> this is a meter that can be controlled from this central location and they can turn your electricity on and off. they're putting them in oklahoma city, to her having health problems. i know a man whose house was set on fire.

there are a lot of problems and nobody seems to be paying any attention to them. >> i'd be happy to look into it. i've had a couple of other people mention it to me. then again, i don't know every bill. i don't even know if that one around. we are happy to help anybody. we want people to have interruptions in power for any reason, let alone what situations where houses burned down. so we are really trying our best now. >> let me make sure -- well, let's go had. want to make sure that everyone has a chance to do a least one of we've missed anyone. >> okay, on this with workplace violence, i had a grandchild just left and how can that be workplace violence?

>> how can it take for years to bring a guide to trial that was guilty. >> he is still receiving his pain i don't understand that. >> i don't either. we have tried to do things legislatively on us. you know, it's difficult because then you are legislatively tampering with a court case, which usually don't want a legislator to do. i went to the funeral for one of the soldiers that was killed. one of the kids was from this district, the most heartbreaking funeral that i've ever seen in my life. they were getting ready to do one deployment, and then another one, the fellow soldiers got up to talk about what a great young soldier he was. his sister got up in and read letters home that he had written home from basic training about how proud he was and how he found his niche in life and what this meant to him to put on the uniform and it was completely heartbreaking. how this guy, you know, number one, there's a lot of questions

and answers as to why he wasn't kicked out of the military. a long longtime before. serious questions about his stability. >> it shouldn't take four years to get this done. the workplace violence denies those soldiers the benefit they should get, that their families should get. and the recognition. it's an act of terrorism and work in the united states. this is a former texas judge named john carter. i hope supported every piece of

legislation he had. this is a totally un- outrageous situation. >> my husband mentioned the other day comings that i don't understand why they allow him to keep this in the military. >> if this gentleman right here. >> just three quick questions. first, obama to win delaying the employer mandate, is that constitutional? if so, what consequences will take place? >> i don't think it is.

he is citing the constitution that the executive is given reasonable authority of i'm not an attorney, you and i probably agree on that issue. >> the other one with eric holder if anyone is content, what does that actually mean?

>> congress has to take him to court. we are in litigation now. >> can you put a hand on his can you talk about john mccain and lindsey graham? [applause] >> oh, boy. i respect anybody who spent time in a vietnamese prison camp. i have great respect for that. lindsey graham has worn a uniform as a judge advocate. and i respect that as well. we don't always agree, but i do not question the patriotism. we just don't always agree.

>> what let's get you a microphone really quickly. >> i have never gone to a town meeting before. i have always voted republican. i am really having a hard time recognizing the party i have voted for my entire life, one issue that has really been bothering me is the immigration issue. what i am hearing is going on behind the scenes is that you are all supporting this issue and it is going to be done. i'm having trouble figuring out if i will show up in 2014.

the problem that i have u.s. have passed legislation. verifying that it has not been done. you have mentioned many times that the administration is not following through on things and why would you even consider passing this other legislation, which they will have an equal opportunity not follow through on. and will you the conference with the senate and pass something. >> may be over two thirds of the republican senator voted no.

>> it is not going to pass now for the representatives. it is pretty unlikely is something anything remotely like that that is going to come out of the house. we haven't even passed the bill yet and we are months away from even dealing with this. i think these other issues, the end of the fiscal year, the debt ceiling, these things are way ahead. what i will say is that there is one point of agreement. i don't think anyone thinks the immigration system is working. i have yet to decide whether doing nothing is better than doing something.

for people that are all panicked and they have never enacted this i don't think it's enough that they actually moved further it is not going anywhere. >> i realize that. since we haven't enacted a bill or voted on a bill yet, this

includes a majority them in order to increase funding and security to do things. so now the republicans are responsible. not participating at the polls won't help. and we have a lot of good guys elected in 2010 to stop a lot of bad stuff and i've cut the deficit in half. and they are every bit as tough on american security or border control as anyone else. so this is pretty tough stuff when it comes to border security

when the study says we did all this stuff in the bill, that they would cut legal immigration by a third to a half. does anyone think that is good enough? i do not. i don't think so at all. >> we are happy to have a town hall about this. >> what is the republican majority in the house doing to guarantee this will preserve the freedom to express their faith and share? >> we have legislation on not.

tim walberg, who is an ordained minister and some other people are very heavily involved, who cosponsored the legislation. we are trying to in the last couple of weeks on this issue, so i don't consider this a particularly partisan issue. so it's pretty terrible and the idea that you would tell a person of enough conscience to be a minister or a priest or a rabbi what they are going to say, this is one of those cases where their legions is now the right to exercise that so on our

side of the hour, there are a number of democratic supporters. anything else? [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> he sat there for three hours. it is not my rear end, it's my knee. [applause] >> thank you guys for taking the time to come soon if you have something personally that you want to visit with me, please

come on up and i will be glad to answer any questions. [inaudible question] >> that is what they are supposed to do. a lot of those kids are interns. >> believe me when you're in congress, you find out how many things you are ignorant about. but there is always someone that knows more about anything. >> i want to talk to this lady first. again, i will be here.

>> today, immigration facing the nation. the senate passed an immigration bill in the house did not. national journal reporter tom johnson talked about immigration and the economy. we can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. the town hall is live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. here on c-span2, booktv in prime time. this includes iconic images of the kennedy stemming from the "after words" program.

>> we have more coverage ofave f nonfiction books every weekend on booktv. ..